Cal. Civ. Code § 1714; CACI No. 1000
Premises liability in California: Rowland, and why "I was a trespasser" is not the answer
A claim in California superior courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
California did something in 1968 that most states have still not done: it abolished the categories that had governed landowner liability for centuries. Invitee, licensee, trespasser — gone as dispositive labels.
What replaced them is a general duty of ordinary care, tested through a multi-factor analysis. Your status on the land is now one consideration among several, not the answer.
The elements are the same as negligence. The duty analysis is what makes this its own claim.
What the claim is
You were injured by a dangerous condition on someone else's property.
The recurring cases: slip and fall on a wet or damaged surface, trip hazards, inadequate lighting, falling objects, defective stairs and railings, swimming pool incidents, and negligent security — a claim that the owner should have anticipated criminal conduct and taken precautions against it.
The defendant is whoever owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property. Often that is not the person on the deed.
Where the right comes from
Common law as reformed by Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, resting on the general duty statute, Civil Code § 1714(a).
What a plaintiff has to prove — CACI No. 1000
- The defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property.
- The defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property.
- The plaintiff was harmed.
- The defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
Note element one. Possession and control drive the duty, not title. A tenant in possession can be liable where the owner is not; a management company that controlled the area can be liable alongside both.
And the duty question is decided by the judge, using the Rowland factors:
- The foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff
- The degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury
- The closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury
- Moral blame attached to the conduct
- The policy of preventing future harm
- The burden on the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty
- The availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk
That last factor is unusual and distinctly Californian: the court asks, openly, whether the risk is insurable and at what cost.
In practice the fight is often about notice — did the owner know of the condition, or should inspection have found it. And in negligent security cases, the burden factor does heavy work: courts weigh how expensive the proposed precaution was against how foreseeable the crime.
How long you have to file
Two years for personal injury, under CCP § 335.1.
Three years for property damage, under CCP § 338.
The discovery rule applies to latent conditions — a defect that could not reasonably have been found.
What has to happen before you file
Nothing, against a private owner.
Six months, against a public entity. A fall in a public building, a park, a school, or on a government sidewalk triggers the Government Claims Act. You must present a written claim within six months of the injury.
Miss it, and the rescue sequence is an application for leave to present a late claim within one year, then a petition to the superior court within six months of a denial.
Character: a condition precedent the plaintiff must plead and prove. Government Code § 945.4 bars the suit without it.
And a claim against a public entity is not an ordinary premises claim. It must be brought under the dangerous condition of public property statute, Gov. Code § 835, which has its own elements — including that the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk, and that the entity had actual or constructive notice long enough in advance to have protected against it.
Who can be sued — and who cannot
Anyone who owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property. Multiple defendants are normal — owner, tenant, property manager, maintenance contractor.
Two statutory immunities cut the claim off entirely:
Recreational use immunity, under Civ. Code § 846. A landowner who permits the public to use property for recreational purposes without charge owes no duty to keep it safe — subject to exceptions for willful failure to warn of a known hazard, for consideration paid, and for express invitees.
Trespasser protection, under Civ. Code § 847. The Legislature responded to Rowland in 1985 by barring recovery by a person injured on property while committing or fleeing from certain felonies. So the categories are gone as a general matter, and the Legislature restored a piece of the old protection by statute.
Common defenses
Open and obvious condition. A hazard so apparent that a reasonable person would have avoided it may negate duty — though it does not automatically do so where the plaintiff had to encounter it anyway.
No notice — the owner neither knew nor should have known of the condition. This is the most common winning defense in slip and fall cases, and it is why the length of time a spill was on the floor is litigated so heavily.
Comparative fault, on California's pure comparative standard.
Proposition 51 apportionment of non-economic damages.
The recreational use and trespasser immunities.
The statute of limitations, and against a public entity, failure to present a claim.
What the claim pays
The same as negligence: economic damages without cap, non-economic damages subject to Proposition 51 apportionment, and punitive damages only on a Civil Code § 3294 showing of oppression, fraud, or malice by clear and convincing evidence.
Premises liability is not strict liability. An owner is not an insurer of visitors' safety, and proof that an injury happened on the property proves nothing by itself.
No fee-shifting. The American rule applies.
Jury trial: yes, though duty is decided by the judge before the jury sees the case.
What people get wrong
"I was an invitee, so they owed me the highest duty." Those categories were abolished in 1968. Status is one Rowland factor.
"They're liable because I fell on their property." No. You must prove negligence in the use or maintenance of the property, which usually means notice of the condition.
"It was obviously dangerous, so I can't recover." Not necessarily. An open and obvious condition may negate duty, but not where you had to encounter it regardless.
"Trespassers can never sue." They can, subject to the felony-related statutory bar.
"I fell in a city park, so it's the same as any other fall." It is not. Six months to present a claim, and a different statute governs the claim itself.
"The owner is always the defendant." Control matters more than title.
Where it came from
Before 1968, California followed the common-law scheme every state used: a landowner owed an invitee reasonable care, a licensee only a warning of known hazards, and a trespasser almost nothing. Which box you fell into decided the case, and enormous effort went into arguing about labels rather than conduct.
Rowland v. Christian swept that away. The plaintiff was a social guest — a licensee — injured by a cracked bathroom faucet the host knew about. Under the old scheme he had no case. The Supreme Court held the categories had become a set of arbitrary distinctions obscuring the real question, and replaced them with a general duty of ordinary care assessed through the factors that now carry the case's name.
It was one of the most influential state tort decisions of the century, and a number of other states followed.
The Legislature then took a piece of it back. In 1985 it enacted Civ. Code § 847, restoring immunity against claims by people injured while committing or fleeing certain felonies on the property — a targeted legislative response to a judicial decision, and a reminder that Rowland is a common-law rule operating alongside statutes.
The live area now is negligent security — how far a property owner's duty extends to preventing third-party crime, where the burden factor and foreseeability do most of the work.
Common questions
Does it matter whether I was an invitee, licensee, or trespasser?
Not as it once did. California abolished those categories as dispositive in Rowland v. Christian (1968). Your status is one factor in the duty analysis rather than the answer.
How long do I have to file a slip and fall claim in California?
Two years for personal injury. Three years if the claim is for property damage. Against a public entity you must present a claim within six months first.
Do I automatically win because I was hurt on their property?
No. Premises liability is not strict liability. You must show the owner or occupier was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property — usually that they knew or should have known about the condition.
Who is the right defendant — the owner or the tenant?
Whoever owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the area. Control matters more than title, and it is common to name several defendants.
I fell in a public park. Is that different?
Yes, in two ways. You must present a claim to the public entity within six months, and the claim itself proceeds under the dangerous condition of public property statute rather than ordinary premises liability. Recreational use immunity may also apply.